|
COPYRIGHT 2006 Prufrock Press
I watched a social studies teacher present a lesson on the Civil War by means of a PowerPoint presentation. Slide by slide flashed on the screen, filled with bulleted lists of information that the teacher read to her students word for word. Students were staring at their handout pages with glassy eyes, lulled into a state of comatose compliance by the thought that all they had to do was study the handout for the test later that week. It strongly reminded me of my eighth-grade history teacher, more years ago than I care to admit, who had a similar teaching style, albeit without the visual component. We would walk into the classroom, sit down, and take out our notebooks. She would start talking and we would write furiously, trying to take down her notes word for word, for we would be expected to regurgitate those facts in the test coming up in the following week.
At least then we had something to do. Between these two eras, a teacher might have written notes on the chalkboard, or later, used overhead transparencies to share information with the class. Chalkboard and overheads had the advantage that teachers could make changes based on student needs and questions. The very features that make PowerPoint easy to use may also limit its versatility. Has the advent of PowerPoint presentations improved instruction in our classrooms? You decide.
A Short History of PowerPoint Use
In the late 1990s, several studies indicated that college students found PowerPoint-based lectures more interesting than traditional lectures (Harknett & Cobane, 1997; Lowry, 1999). Lowry reported that student scores on tests were even improved with PowerPoint lectures as opposed to traditional lectures (51.8% versus 43.5%). Features of the lecture style that students found appealing were the use of a PC (43%), the visual aids (22%), presentation format (16%), lecture structure (16%), and clarity (12%; Lowry).
These researchers also reported that certain elements unique to this kind of lecture presentation appeared to increase interest on the part of students. These elements include the use of color, the line-by-line or concept-by-concept presentation of information, a well-thought-out preorganization, flexibility for adding graphics, and easy variation of size and type of fonts (Harknett & Cobane, 1997; Holzl, 1997; Lowry, 1999). Aly, Elen, and Willems (2004) found that this type of lecture focused attention and reduced distraction, benefiting student learning.
Szaboa and Hastings (2000) found similar trends in their study at Nottingham Trent University in England. The five most appreciated components of the method were variation of fonts, the use of illustrations, a preference for light-colored background, the use of colors, and the line-by-line projection of lecture concepts. Seventy-two percent of their respondents reported that they wanted PowerPoint presentations to be adopted in all their classes. However, the researchers caution that they were not certain whether this desire arose from educational needs or the need to be entertained.
Changes in how we approach instruction in today's inclusive classroom suggest a curious dichotomy. On the one hand, teachers have to transmit a large amount of standardized information to prepare students for the state tests. On the other hand, teachers have to do it in a variety of modalities to suit many individual learner differences. Learner differences span the spectrum of motivation, skills, prior knowledge, and cognitive style. Researchers have described cognitive style as an umbrella term covering the varying ways individuals process, organize, classify, and/or label environmental factors (Grieve & Davis, 1971; Kagan, Moss, & Sigel, 1963; Odom, McIntyre, & Neale, 1971). In its broadest sense then, cognitive style is the typical mode in which an individual processes information. Cognitive style has been shown to be an influential variable in student learning (Baker & Dwyer, 2005; Dunn & Dunn, 1992; Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 2003; Gardner, 1983); problem solving (Guetskow, 1951); concept identification (Davis & Klausmeister, 1970); and fact recall (Graff, 2005). Some researchers even propose that, "regardless of academic level, students earn statistically higher standardized achievement and attitude test scores when they are taught and/or tested with resources and strategies responsive to their learning-styles" (Kritsonis, 1997/1998, p. 2). Students can also engage in high-quality, creative productive work when student strengths and potential strengths are used as a foundation for effective learning (Renzulli, 1994). Researchers have concluded that matching students with various learning environments affects cognitive outcomes and student satisfaction with different types of educational processes (Brophy & Good, 1986; Kagan et al., 1963; Renzulli).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001) dictates that educators disaggregate student performance data into cells determined by various criteria, suggesting that the performance of the students in the different categories is determined by conditions unique to their groups (VanSciver, 2005). Teachers are expected to teach these students in those categories to specifically meet their needs. However, students are not neatly categorized into those groups in schools. All kinds of students with all kinds of strengths and needs sit together in today's classrooms. Teachers face stronger pressure than ever to differentiate instruction in the classroom. Many school districts embrace technology as part of the differentiation solution.
Focusing on the Wrong Thing
Technology in the Classroom
Despite the fact that the access to technology in schools has increased significantly, the ability of teachers to use technology in classroom instruction lags behind access (Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2000) found in a national survey that 99% of full-time public school teachers reported having access to computers or the Internet somewhere in their schools, and 84% reported having at least one computer in their classrooms. However, only 20% of teachers reported feeling well prepared to integrate technology into their teaching (NCES).
To counteract this feeling of inadequacy, the standard answer is to increase emphasis on technical proficiency of teachers in computer use (Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004)....
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
